Transport
The next item of business is a statement by Nicol Stephen on the transport white paper, "Scotland's transport future". The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, during which there should be no interventions.
I am publishing today the Executive's transport white paper, "Scotland's transport future". Copies have been placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre and are now available for all members.
Transport is important for our economy, for our communities and for every individual. Our challenge is to transform Scotland's transport, making it more reliable, accessible and customer friendly. It must deliver high-quality services to passengers and business. We are now investing more than ever in major projects: new railway lines and tram lines, the rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports and road improvements. Our biggest commitment is to public transport. In 1998-99, less than a quarter—23 per cent—of the transport budget was spent on public transport. We now spend more than two thirds of the transport budget on buses, trains, ferries, cycling, walking and other forms of public transport.
We want to do more. The importance of transport is increasing. We want to make certain that we have the skills, experience and structures to deliver. In "Scotland's transport future", we set out our proposals. There will be a new transport agency for Scotland and a network of new regional transport partnerships. For the first time, there will be a national strategy for Scottish transport. After decades of neglect and underinvestment, we now have available record resources to deliver a truly integrated transport network for Scotland. The transport budget is substantial, rising to £1 billion per year in 2005-06. Between now and 2012, we plan to spend around £3 billion on major transport infrastructure projects. I have already mentioned the airport rail links; there are also the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, Edinburgh trams, the Airdrie to Bathgate line, the Borders rail link and many more projects.
We are making progress, but I fully admit that there is still a long way to go. We want improvements. We have a broad cross-party consensus—which I welcome—on all the projects and all the funding, but we must now create the right environment in which to speed up delivery. Delivering the current programme requires the right people, the right skills and the right structures at central, regional and local levels.
Our proposals for the future are founded on the creation of a new national transport agency and the development of a long-term national transport strategy. We will also legislate to create a network of new statutory regional transport partnerships, which will enable planning and delivery of projects of regional or strategic significance in a way that builds on the good work of the existing informal regional transport partnerships. The national transport agency will be directly accountable to Scottish ministers. It will be a centre of expertise, skills and knowledge. It will be a professional organisation, which will be tasked with delivery.
I make it clear that we have no intention of transferring to the agency any transport powers that are currently exercised by local authorities, with the sole exception of the rail franchise powers of Strathclyde Passenger Transport. Wherever practicable, we want powers to be devolved from the centre to the new regional transport partnerships.
We want to extend the benefits of concessionary travel by introducing national schemes, one for younger people and the other for older and disabled people. To help to achieve that, we propose to create discretionary powers that would allow the agency or regional transport partnerships to operate such concessionary schemes.
At the moment, there are four regional transport bodies: the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership, or HITRANS; the south-east Scotland transport partnership, or SESTRAN; the north-east Scotland transport partnership, or NESTRANS; and the west of Scotland transport partnership, or WESTRANS. Each part of Scotland is different and has different transport needs. Those voluntary partnerships have already done a lot of excellent work in building transport strategies across their respective regions and we want to develop that approach. We propose to create a network of statutory regional transport partnerships to cover every part of Scotland. We will consult further with local government on the geographic coverage, powers and duties of the new partnerships, but the intention is to build on the four existing transport partnerships.
We do not intend to take a standard approach in all parts of Scotland. The new partnerships will be flexible enough to tailor their roles and functions to their particular regional needs. Their core membership will come from local government, with a representative from each of the councils in the region. We intend to make it possible for councils to agree to transfer specific transport powers and duties to the new partnerships. Following consultation, we will issue guidance on two or three basic models for the new partnerships. The partnerships will be able to include representation from the local business community and other external organisations of about a third of their total membership, so decisions that are made on issues will involve those who are best placed to address local transport needs.
The new partnerships will have to prepare a regional transport strategy to make the case for investment and for new infrastructure and to guide and co-ordinate the activities of member councils in their region. They will be able to requisition core funding from revenue support grants; to undertake prudential borrowing, under the prudential borrowing regime, to finance capital infrastructure investment; and to make the case for Scottish Executive funding from grants under section 70 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. We will work closely with the four existing regional partnerships and with local government during the next few months to work out the best shape and function for the new bodies.
Strathclyde Passenger Transport in the west of Scotland is clearly a special case. We have made it clear that we wish to preserve the strengths of SPT and to build on the significant skills and experience of its work force. We are determined that there will be a strong regional transport partnership in the west of Scotland to which SPT's powers will transfer, with the exception of the other rail powers, which, as I said, will transfer to the new agency. Let me be clear that I expect the new regional partnership to continue to have a key role in the development, management and monitoring of rail services in its area.
Those are the structures that we propose to introduce. However, ensuring that our road network is developed and used as efficiently as possible is not just about major projects. Our proposals are also intended to improve the day-to-day management and maintenance of Scotland's roads by tightening the regulation of roadworks.
Recently, we consulted on how to reduce unnecessary disruption caused by utility company roadworks. Such roadworks are obviously a fact of life if we want to access essential services such as water, gas, electricity and telecommunications. However, I want to ensure that they cause minimum disruption for businesses, road users and the public. Repairs must be completed to the highest standards and tough action must be taken if there are failures.
We will do that by improving the quality and co-ordination of roadworks and through tougher enforcement when things go wrong. A new independent body will act as a watchdog and will monitor performance and quality with the power to rule on disputes and impose tough penalties for poor performance. The starting point for improvement will be the Scottish roadworks register, which roads authorities and utility companies have developed in partnership. The register is not well enough used at present, but it will become the single national planning tool for all roadworks in Scotland, with statutory backing.
In the context of the new national and regional transport arrangements, we also intend to carry out a two-phase review of our toll bridges. The review will examine all Scotland's toll bridges—Skye, Erskine, Tay and Forth—and we expect to have completed the first phase by the autumn of this year, with the overall review completed by summer 2005. The first phase will assess all existing tolls, including the way in which changes to tolls could help to achieve our environmental and economic objectives of reducing pollution and congestion. The second phase will include an examination of the broader issues of the management, operation and maintenance of the bridges.
We have already made it clear that we are committed to ending the discredited toll regime on the Skye bridge. Professional advisers have been appointed, discussions with Skye Bridge Ltd have begun and I believe that we can achieve that goal by the end of this year.
The white paper proposals represent a radical improvement in our ability to deliver new transport projects in Scotland. We want a national transport strategy with a powerful new agency and strong regional transport partnerships that are capable of delivering our £3 billion investment programme and of transforming our transport network.
The new approach gives us the opportunity to improve Scotland's future transport dramatically and to create safer, higher-quality and better-integrated services that respect our environment. Most important of all, it gives everyone in the Parliament and throughout Scotland an opportunity to work together in a new partnership to make certain that we deliver.
The minister will now take questions. I have a long list on my screen of members who wish to speak, so I appeal for brevity from everyone who is selected.
I thank the minister for the courtesy copies of his statement and the white paper. Scottish National Party members agree with much of what he said but, as is often the case with the Executive, more has been left unspecified than has been stated. Will he assure us that, following the demise of SPT, which means the end of a body that has served the west of Scotland well, adequate powers and resources will be available for the new agency, never mind the regional bodies? Will he confirm that, to prevent the national agency from being simply a rebranding of the Scottish Executive's roads divisions, it will receive the rail powers that Network Rail and the Strategic Rail Authority possess, together with the requisite share of finance? Will similar powers that are available to other bodies, or the ability to direct and instruct United Kingdom organisations, be transferred in respect of air and maritime matters?
I cannot give reassurance on all those points, but I can guarantee that the new agency will be strong. We will seek to attract to the new agency skilled transport professionals from throughout Scotland and from other parts of the UK. It is vital to attract new skills, especially in public transport, because for decades in Scotland we have not delivered the sorts of new rail and tram projects and the scale of investment in bus services that we are now committed to delivering.
As Kenny MacAskill knows, a rail review is taking place. The review is important and we are very much a part of it. I have discussed the rail review with Alistair Darling to follow up his commitment—in his statement announcing the review to the House of Commons—that he would like further devolution of powers to Scotland and to Wales. We welcome the opportunity for and strongly support further devolution of powers, provided that appropriate resources accompany those new responsibilities. I hope that the new agency will receive additional powers on those matters. We will find out about the UK rail review in the coming weeks and months.
I emphasise that the new agency does not mark the demise of SPT. I referred to SPT in my statement because of the level of concern that had been expressed, especially when the consultation document on the agency was published. Since last autumn, I have had regular and extremely constructive discussions with SPT, including with Alistair Watson, who is SPT's chairman.
I have emphasised that we are not going for a monolithic or one-size-fits-all approach throughout Scotland. We will reflect and recognise the differences in the regional bodies in the proposed legislation. I envisage a strong regional partnership in the west of Scotland, to which the powers of SPT will be transferred and which will have at its heart the management, the staff and the functions of SPT at present. The only exception to that relates to the rail franchise powers. In my statement, I went out of my way to emphasise that I still expect SPT to have a direct role in the management and development of rail services in the west of Scotland.
I regard the statement as positive for SPT, its staff and its management. Most important of all is the fact that passengers in the west of Scotland can look forward to further development of SPT's powers and functions as a result of the statement.
I thank the minister for alerting me to his statement. I have a short question. What will he do after the agency is set up? Is it not the minister's job to devise the national transport strategy for Scotland and to ensure the delivery of the key projects? What undertaking can he give us that there will not simply be another expensive quango that will reinvent the wheel and give further excuses for non-delivery?
There will be a new agency—it will not be a new quango—and, as an agency, it will be directly accountable to ministers. We need the new agency and the skills and professionalism to deliver projects specifically because of the decades of underinvestment in our public transport infrastructure. There was a Conservative Government for most of those years and projects ground to one almighty halt under the Conservatives' leadership.
We are talking about kick-starting a different level of investment. Under the Conservatives, less than 25 per cent of total transport investment was in public transport and more than 75 per cent was in our roads infrastructure. We want to shift that balance and we want to increase spend. Indeed, we are doing both. We are dramatically increasing spend on transport and we are shifting the emphasis towards public transport. To do that well, effectively and on time and to ensure that we deliver, we need the new agency.
I have a couple of quick questions about the statement, which I welcome. First, will the minister give an assurance that the regional partnerships will genuinely be about partnerships and local authorities working together in areas to provide better transport services for their communities and not about imposing structures on unwilling local government throughout Scotland? In particular, perhaps he could say a few words about the peculiar situation in which Fife finds itself, whereby it might be split asunder in relation to those regional transport strategies. Secondly, will he give an assurance that the proposals for restructuring will not lead to any delays in the processing of existing transport projects, such as the Borders rail link and the many other important transport projects that are outlined in the document?
The central purpose of the new transport agency is to speed up delivery and to make delivery more effective—all my efforts will be focused on achieving that. It is crucial that we keep on target and on track with the major infrastructure projects. Towards the back of the document, we have listed for the first time all the public transport projects and roads projects. We have set ourselves timescales for the delivery of those projects and the transport agency is absolutely crucial in making certain that we deliver to those timescales.
On the regional partnerships, we genuinely want co-operation between councils. We will encourage councils through the consultation process to make proposals that will fit their own areas. For example, we have made it clear that we would be willing to consider a local authority such as Fife Council being a member of two different transport partnerships—perhaps Argyll and Bute Council could be, too. We will want to consider that matter while being very much aware that that could have an impact on other aspects of community planning and the delivery of other services. We are not jumping to conclusions, but we will fully consult on the issue and the opportunity that I have suggested remains open.
We are determined to ensure that the regional transport partnerships are effective. We do not want a situation in which one local authority can withdraw from a partnership or would be unwilling to commit resources to the partnership. That is why we have taken the approach that is outlined in the white paper, which is strong but still emphasises the crucial role of local government.
I have three short questions to ask the minister. First, how will the statutory body that will replace SPT ensure integrated public transport? Secondly, how will the green transport plans that are mentioned in the white paper instruct local authorities in their regional planning? What status will they have? Will there be a department of significant stature on healthy transport within the new agency? Finally, will the transport strategy include interim targets to reach the Executive's target of reducing the level of traffic and stabilising it at the 2001 level by 2021, or will that commitment remain a pie-in-the-sky dream to be ridiculed by the minister's successors? Scotland needs a transport strategy—
No speeches, please. You have asked your questions; let us move on.
Okay. Thank you. How will the Executive's strategy deliver that without interim targets?
Three short answers, minister.
SPT and its powers will be transferred into the new, strong west of Scotland regional transport authority, which, for the first time, will be able to deliver an integrated approach that brings together the roads functions and the functions that are not currently available to SPT relating to bus lanes and park-and-ride facilities.
Green transport plans are a crucial part of our future development proposals. We must work closely with our colleagues in planning, in economic development and in all aspects of government to get the right transport solutions. However, green transport plans and their promotion will be an important responsibility of the new transport agency.
I would have thought that Chris Ballance would welcome the announcement today of our first national transport strategy for Scotland. The issues that he has raised will be considered in the context of the new strategy.
I thank the minister for his statement. I, too, have three questions. First, will he set aside any funding that is in the transport budget for the construction of the M74 northern extension pending the results of the inquiry that is under way? Secondly, is he aware of the Standing Advisory Committee for Trunk Road Assessment's report, which was commissioned by Margaret Thatcher's Government and which tells us that building new roads just creates greater car use? Building new roads would be an error for Scotland and for the plan. Thirdly, concessionary travel schemes for pensioners in Wales are multimodal and have no time restrictions in place. Why can we not have such schemes here?
All the proposals that are set out on page 66 of the document, in relation to major transport infrastructure projects, have been budgeted for. The M74 proposal is part of our commitment to provide £3 billion of new investment for major projects in the period up to 2012. Clearly, that is without prejudice to the results of the inquiry, which will be submitted to me in due course.
It is for exactly the reason that Rosie Kane identifies in relation to the focus of previous spend on trunk roads and roads in general that we have, as I set out in the statement, shifted dramatically the level of expenditure on public transport. We have significantly increased our spending on public transport and it is clear that, in the balance of priorities, we are committed to public transport. However, there continues to be a need for investment in the completion of the trunk road network, the bypassing of key settlements and communities and the upgrading of the road network for safety and other—sometimes environmental and economic—reasons. We will continue to invest in roads.
We are determined to introduce a national concessionary fares scheme. The details of that will be announced in due course.
I welcome the minister's announcement about the toll bridges review group. Along with Trish Godman and Des McNulty, I hope that he will encourage the group to consider closely the Erskine bridge—another of Scotland's most discredited toll regimes. The minister will be aware that the tolls were introduced for the sole purpose of paying for the construction of the bridge some three decades ago. He will also be aware that we have now paid for the bridge not once, not twice, but five times over. Unlike other bridges, it is one that the Executive owns. Can we look forward to early action being taken on removing the tolls from the Erskine bridge?
Those will be key considerations for us in relation to the bridges review.
Yes or no?
The short answer is yes. There are, however, issues to do with the cost of the maintenance of our bridges and, as I said in my statement, we have to consider economic and environmental issues. I give members the commitment that all the issues will be fairly assessed in the bridges review.
I have two questions for the minister. The first relates to the ability of the new local partnerships to requisition core funding from rate support grant. In what respects will the new partnerships differ from police and fire boards that are joint boards? What impact will the power have on local democracy and local councils' budgets? Secondly, the minister talked about having strong local partnerships. What powers will they have to regulate what have become, in effect, private monopolies? Previously, transport provision was a public monopoly.
The new regional transport partnerships are clearly not joint boards and will be established by separate legislation. We are building on the current regional partnerships, which in all cases receive some funding from the Executive and some funding from local authorities. We are trying to work with the grain and with the current partnerships to develop the existing approach.
I recognise that some local authorities do not like the power of requisition, so we will carry out full consultation on the new funding arrangements. I am determined that the new regional partnerships will be well funded and able to deliver. Individual local authorities should not have an opt-out facility from the proposals.
I welcome the minister's acknowledgement of the great achievements of SPT and hope sincerely that arrangements following the review will not disrupt its good work. Does he acknowledge that there is a powerful case for establishing a similar regional agency for the east of Scotland, covering Lothian, Fife and the Dundee area, to co-ordinate public transport in that part of the country?
I hope that the new regional transport partnerships will be strong and appropriate in all parts of Scotland. The new partnerships will have an opportunity to do more than the existing SESTRAN or HITRANS. I know that that is the ambition of many members of the Scottish Parliament from the areas that the partnerships cover. It is also the ambition of many transport planners and professionals across Scotland. We are determined to work in partnership to encourage developments, instead of forcing them on local areas. Far more can be achieved in co-operation with local government and local transport operators than through direction. However, there is great potential for SESTRAN to develop into a powerful regional transport partnership for the south-east of Scotland and to advance considerably from the current position.
How will airport development fit into the strategy? In particular, will the strategy support the continuing growth of Prestwick airport? Will the minister assure us that he will do all that he can to increase the capacity on the Glasgow to Prestwick rail route to match the growing demand on it?
Air travel is one area in which certain responsibilities are reserved and certain responsibilities are devolved. Through the planning system, our investment in the new airport rail links, the upgrading of the line south to Prestwick, improvements to Prestwick rail station and our support for the route development fund, which has been very important for Prestwick, we will continue to have a central role in air projects and development. The national transport agency will play a crucial part in that respect and will need to recruit expertise on air issues.
What benefits will the new transport agency bring to bus services for Scotland's communities? Will the agency have the powers to address the deficiency in bus services on which many communities rely? Where routes are profitable there is a good service, but where they are not there tends to be a bad service. Does the minister agree that action must be taken to tackle the bus industry where it is not delivering a service, especially to communities that rely on bus services and have no choice?
I agree that there continue to be problems, especially in some rural communities and in relation to weekend and evening services. We hoped that the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which provided the opportunity to introduce quality partnerships or quality contracts, would lead to improvements in and development of the bus network. There are many informal quality partnerships, but there are not yet any statutory partnerships. It will be the responsibility of the new agency to ensure that we develop such partnerships, that we are able to make effective use of the provisions in the 2001 act and that we deliver on our commitment to the bus route development fund. That fund, which amounts to £18 million over three years, is a significant new investment in bus services in Scotland. It goes beyond our commitment on concessionary fares and it will lead to the kick-starting of new and developed services, particularly in the areas that I mentioned at the start of my answer—rural, weekend and evening services.
Will the minister look at the problem that I have raised before about senior citizens going from A to B—from Edinburgh to Glasgow, or vice versa, for example—and finding that, when they reach the boundary of the travel scheme area, they are decanted from the bus and have to stand in the rain for half an hour waiting on the next bus, on which they pay their fare for the remaining part of their journey? If they are going to Dumfries, the drivers put them off at Beattock. Instead of waiting a year before attending to the matter, the minister must attend to it now so that, in the interim period, senior citizens are not disadvantaged as they have been throughout the time for which I have been a member of the Scottish Parliament. The minister is responsible for the situation that I have described—will he remedy it?
John Swinburne describes exactly why we need to move to a national scheme. The problems that he mentioned occur—I do not approve of them and they need to stop. They are caused solely because there are boundaries between the 16 local schemes that operate at present. I have made representations on the matter. It is true that some members of staff in the bus companies try to operate more flexibly than others do. However, the new national scheme will bring an end to the situation that the member describes and I will be as delighted as he is when that occurs, which should be soon.
How will the minister address the issues that Des McNulty highlighted earlier about deprivation? As Des McNulty said, Fife is one of the areas with particularly high unemployment. Will the minister look at the economic issues as well as the transportation issues when he comes to prioritise matters such as whether there will be a new Forth road bridge? As I crossed the bridge this morning, the traffic going towards Fife was queueing all the way back to Newton—a distance of 6 or 7 miles. Will he give that problem some priority? I welcome the review of tolls in Scotland and I hope that Fife will be included in that.
Economic opportunities are absolutely central to the white paper to ensure that areas of deprivation have access to good-quality communications and that we have linkages between where people stay and where they can gain employment. That is crucial to our future transport strategy.
In relation to the proposals for the Forth road bridge and an additional crossing, we have proposals for a second bridge at Kincardine. We have encouraged the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, which is responsible for the Forth road bridge, to think about the longer-term opportunities for a new bridge. We await its consultancy proposals and recommendations with interest.
I am sure that the minister regards walking as an important form of transport. Will he consult the Minister for Health and Community Care and the Minister for Education and Young People on the contribution that walking can make to the health of our young people?
Is the minister aware of the recent report that said that the Westminster Government had fudged its figures on air transport and that, by 2050, air transport will, unless we put some curbs on it, contribute 30 per cent of the total global warming gases in the world?
In the interests of time, minister, please deal with the devolved issues.
Walking and indeed running make an important contribution. I am told that Mr Harper engaged in the Edinburgh marathon at the weekend, so I congratulate him on that. We are doing a lot to encourage schoolchildren to walk to school, including through the safer routes to school scheme, and we are making important investments.
I am not aware of any fudging of figures in relation to the air development issues that the member mentioned. However, it is important that the route development fund gives to business and passengers the opportunity of direct, single flights to new destinations, so that people do not have to take two flights, including one to Heathrow or some other hub airport before flying on to their destination.
I apologise to the three remaining members who wanted to ask a question and to the two members who gave up and went away, but I have to move on.